Posted
by
Soulskill
on Tuesday February 28, 2012 @08:00PM
from the reflects-poorly-on-drivers dept.

Hugh Pickens writes "Every year around 17,000 people are injured and over 200 die in backover accidents involving cars, trucks and SUVs. Now the Chicago Tribune reports that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration will send Congress a proposal mandating a rearview camera for all passenger vehicles starting in 2014. 'Adoption of this proposal would significantly reduce fatalities and injuries caused by backover crashes involving children, persons with disabilities, the elderly and other pedestrians,' says NHTSA in its proposal. But the technology won't come cheap. In its study, the NHTSA found that adding a backup camera to a vehicle without an existing visual display screen will probably cost $159 to $203 per vehicle, shrinking to between $58 and $88 for vehicles that already use display screens. Toyota of Albany Sales manager Kelvin Walker says he believes making backup cameras standard on cars made after 2014 is a good idea. 'If you want to get a backup camera with a mirror in it now, it may cost you $700 to $800 as an additional dealer option or you have to purchase a navigation which is about $1,500 to $1,600. So $1,600 compared to $200? You do the math.'"

Most configurations of the Toyota Sienna minivan now have the backup camera standard and the price has not increased significantly from the last model-year that offered it only as an option. This indicates that the price difference in other vehicles is much more of a "convenience charge" than the cost of the system. If it is in every vehicle, there will be no added convenience and therefore nothing to charge for.

Meh, I'd much rather someone sold a car without all the extras. Even if you don't have the extra, the added cost of supporting the option of many of the add-ons makes cars cost a lot. I'm sure it's possible to make a $5000 car that meets all safety and emission requirements, but I guess nobody is interested in buying a vehicle. Everyone wants to buy a lifestyle.

Meh, I'd much rather someone sold a car without all the extras. Even if you don't have the extra, the added cost of supporting the option of many of the add-ons makes cars cost a lot. I'm sure it's possible to make a $5000 car that meets all safety and emission requirements, but I guess nobody is interested in buying a vehicle. Everyone wants to buy a lifestyle.

This makes me wonder...if the camera breaks, am I then mandated to get it fixed or fail my next inspection? What if it costs several grand to get a broken camera fixed or replaced?

I can't find the article that was dicussing this, but one of the reasons for making back up cameras mandatoryis that really people literally cannot turn around far enough to look over their shoulder while backing up.The same goes for elderly drivers, as they no longer have the range of motion to look behind them while seated.

America is getting older and fatter.Back up cameras will make cars safer.

Can you see on the ground directly behind your rear wheel? I thought not. A small child lying down to reach something, or fallen down, is way way below any site line from the drivers seat, no matter if you swivel your head 360 degrees and use all three mirrors. You would have to work the side mirror controls extensively; even then it's very dubious you could cover all approaches; and by the time you'd examined all achievable areas, there would have been plenty of time to miss things in the areas your mirrors weren't pointing.

Unless you are staring at ALL approaches to the blind areas 100% of the time (good luck driving), there is a risk someone or something can enter it without your noticing.

The idea of "you should learn to be a better driver" doesn't work in practice. A disturbingly large number of drivers are mentally the equivalent of children who are baffled by a parent playing peek-a-boo, yet most of them are issued drivers licenses anyway. Unless you're going to revamp the driver's license system to be biannually test-based, like pilot's licenses, hoping for them to improve is a fool's hope. So any tool you put in their stupid hands that makes the world a tiny bit safer for the rest of us is a good thing.

It'd be different if they only risked their own lives, but in this case they're only risking the lives of others. Darwin's theory doesn't help us out with this problem.

And not only is that base assumption wrong, but his statement fails utterly to take history into account: 100 years of driving has created a new category of fatality rate bested only by our improvements in weapons and war. "Solved problem for the last 100 years of driving" is simply false. It's really a new problem created by the last 100 years of driving.

This, as with all car safety laws, isn't a retrofit law. They aren't saying "You have to go buy this and put it on all cars out there." They are saying (or rather considering saying) "All cars made from now on must include this feature."

Same shit as passive safety systems, window mounted stop lights, seatbelts and so on. You needn't retrofit them on something that didn't have them, manufacturers just have to include them on new vehicles.

No, it isn't. A number of posters estimated that optimistic cases (i.e. where all deaths are prevented) will work out to $7-$12M/person. Without any analysis, I am going to guess that seatbelts have a much lower cost per life saved ratio
There are probably better ways to spend the money and save more human lives per $ million.

Cars are not a "right". They have to integrate with the rest of the transportation system on a giant grid of shared roads. If they aren't integrating properly, they should not be permitted to be in the system at all. Safety is just one attribute they need to have.

If it were just your car in just your driveway, fine. Back up around your property all you want, drive around it blindfolded, I don't care. And if this was something that affected only your personal safety, and not that of other people, I wouldn't care either. If you don't want to pay for a car with a driver's side airbag, and would rather die in a head-on collision, I'm all for it. Sayonara, cheapskate. But when you are on the public roads, you damn sure better play well with the other drivers. That means a vehicle that minimizes the risks to the rest of us.

If the cost of these keep the price of cars unaffordably high to 0.001% of people, and makes them take buses instead, I'm good with that. I'd rather have you on a bus than driving a piece of shit that's not safe, and endangering me and my friends with it.

You think safety equipment increases the overall costs of transportation? The medical bills, liability lawsuits, and lost productivity of vehicle injuries are incredibly expensive. And pro-safety measures of all sorts have been extremely effective [iihs.org].

And every time I'm on the expressway, I wish I had a camera for my blind spots. When the government mandates cameras they will probably be like $200 to meet the standards. I'm not sure why automakers didn't think to add the cameras as a cool cheap safety feature. And the ones that do are only on when you are in reverse, so they don't help you with blind spots.

I second this. A lot of people bring their mirrors in until they can see the sides of their own car -- this is effectively useless and the complete opposite of what you want to do. As soon as someone slapped me up side the head and told me to adjust my mirrors properly a whole new world opened up. Not only do I not have a blind spot I actually recalibrate my mirrors (after the wife cranks 'em in) by making sure that as the cars next to me transition from the rear-view to side-view to the out-the-window-view I can see them in both the before and after views simultaneously.

Technically I could do this, but it's a distraction. If I can't see the side of my own car, then when I look in the mirror I have no frame-of-reference for what I'm looking at. Yes, I guess I can deal with this, but it makes me very unsure while driving. I suspect a great many people are like me in this regard - it's very distracting not to be able to see the side of the car, since you have no real idea what you're looking at or where.

And as you say - since what you see changes based on how you position your head, having a "floating" frame of reference in the mirror means you can never be entirely sure you're see all the important spots.

Technically I could do this, but it's a distraction. If I can't see the side of my own car, then when I look in the mirror I have no frame-of-reference for what I'm looking at.

I used to think this till I tried moving the mirrors out so I couldn''t see the side of my car. No loss of reference. At all. The mirror is a small surface area which is supposed to be showing you dynamic information - cars moving around you. The side of your car is static information. Completely unnecessary information taking up precious mirror space. You get a tremendous amount of reference information from the roadway markings and the movements of the cars around you. And now you've maximized the amount of useful information (cars moving around you) that you're getting from your mirrors.

you must turn your head. i'm not sure how it is in the land of the free, but where i'm from when you want to turn or change lanes, the instructors give you the mantra "mirror, signal, headcheck, move".

as in, first you check the mirror, then you use the turn signal (lot of people miss this one), then you actually turn your head around and look where you're going so you can confirm there's nothing in the blind spot that you DO have no matter where you point your mirrors. when all is clear, then you move.

the fact that people don't even believe they have blind spots makes me not want to drive on public roads anymore.

Just like GP says: on most cars, with the mirrors properly adjusted, a vehicle exiting the field of view of the rear-view mirror will simultaneously cross into the side mirrors, and exit the side mirrors as it enters your peripheral vision. A quick sideways glance may be required to pick it back up at this point, but in most cases it should be nearly alongside you once it's out of the mirrors (this is not strictly true in, say, a convertible with the top up, but it still holds in most cases). This isn't to discount the importance of a good long look before changing lanes, but generally, you should be able to have constant 360-degree situational awareness without craning your neck around the B-pillars.

confirm there's nothing in the blind spot that you DO have no matter where you point your mirrors

Actually, with the SAE recommended method (Google: adjust mirrors sae ) there's NO blind spot requiring a look over the shoulder as the rear of the vehicle next to you is still visible in the side mirror. That said, a *really* short car - or motorcycle - it may not be visible unless you turn your head to the side, but there's no need to look over your shoulder. Obviously, this adjustment method requires three mirrors.

Still you're absolutely correct that double-checking should *always* be done.

Even if you do have your mirrors angled right, you'll still have blind spots.

That said - there's nothing wrong with turning your head and looking into those blind spots.

When I was taught to drive, the first thing my instructor did was park up round the corner of my house and showed me how to angle the mirrors. He told me to describe what I could see. Then he told me to look over my right shoulder at the fence behind me. One of the large panels had graffiti on it - which I couldn't see in any of the three mirrors I had. That lesson, out of all them has stuck with me the most.

No - I don't think these cameras will do what they say they will do. I'm not even sure they will save that many of the 17k accidents from occurring because in my experience these accidents are caused by people who aren't paying attention. If they aren't paying attention their mirrors and turning round to look in their blind spots - what makes you think that they will pay attention to a screen on their dash?

First I was tempted to make a joke, something connecting rear- view and up-skirt with car analogy.
But I won't do that, and instead say that, here in Japan rear view cameras has been fairly standard for a long time. My 11 year old car came with one that recently broke. And it is one of those things you don't miss until you had one and it is gone. We live in a neighborhood with lots of kids running around and playing on the small streets between the houses. And with the rear view camera I could be absolutely sure there were no toddler on a three wheeler behind my car when backing out.

The other thing, is that the factory installed ones are f*cking awesome for parallel parking. Mine displays an overlaid range indicator on the display. Anyone, even a valet not familliar with the car, can back it up to within a couple of inches of a bumper or car behind it. I ordered the option on a whim, but I'll never get another one without it.

Don't people look over their shoulders and use their mirrors when they back up anymore? It's not that hard and has worked fine most of the time for over a century. If some people don't know how to back up properly, then why the hell are they allowed to drive?

Cameras should be an optional luxury feature, not a mandated system. Besides, what if the camera breaks/lens gets dirty?

So, you cannot imagine a scenario where the child enters the blind spot, therefore there is zero risk of it happening? Have you ever heard of these buildings called "garages"? They consist of opaque walls that shield the view of the driver from objects and persons entering the driveway from their sides. Have you never been in a parking stall next to a large vehicle that similarly blocks your line of sight to the side, and can you not imagine small children darting from behind them to behind your vehicle?

I'm willing to bet almost all involve old people whose vision and concentration are past their prime, young people without much experience, and people who are very distracted. I was in the car with my 70+ year old great-aunt when she backed directly into a dumpster--and she was in a minivan with a camera system. How can you not see a gigantic dumpster? You can't prevent accidents like that, period.

what idiot lets their toddler out in the driveway alone to wave goodbye to someone?

They're called "toddlers" because they know how to "toddle", i.e. walk around by themselves. That means that all it takes is you looking away from them for 5 seconds and they could be behind the Canyonero before you look back.

if the kid is too young to not know that standing behind a backing up car is dangerous, he's too young to be out running around by himself and it's 100% the fault of whoever is supposed to be watching them.

You're right -- but blaming the grieving parents for their 5 seconds of inattention won't bring their dead child back, or save the next one either. In particular if your solution is to demand that parents never make a mistake, ever -- well, that's not a solution at all, it's just a way to make yourself feel better by blaming someone else.

Am I the only one who has seen drivers with a rear camera hit something or someone because they looked ONLY at the camera and not at the mirrors or out the windows. I think that when more vehicles come with a standard backup camera, there will be more such incidents, not fewer.

I already know how to back up? Look for people and objects that are behind me and know how to avoid them? Do *I* still havbe to pay extra fora car with a feature I'll never need?

And what about heatproof, waterproof, sun/age embrittlement of the screen and button? Guess what, some of us live in climates with actual temperature extremes and cracked dashboards are a way of life in older cars. Do those cameras and display screen hold up, or do I just replace them regularly (at a nice tidy profit for the dealer and manufacturer) as the environmental wear kicks in?

And then there are the insurance liabilities. If I have a camera and it doesn't work, am I now automatically at fault, even when it was the otherguy that ran behind the car?

In determining how much money should be spent preventing a death, it's useful to attach a dollar amount to a human life. The dollar amount says that after you've spent that much money on one life, you're probably better off spending money saving a different life (probably from a different danger). The usual amount is $1 or $2 million.

Assuming a car lasts 14 years before it's permanently retired, consider a block of 14 years. At 200 lives/year saved, that's 2800 lives saved. At 250 million cars in the US multiplied by $75/car for additional equipment, that's $19 billion. Divided by 2800, that's $6.7 million/life saved. Too much money -- and that's for cars that already have displays.

As just one example of where money would be better spent, and yes it's a pet peeve of mine, is installing a guard rail in the median of the Fairfax County Parkway. There are a handful of deaths from head-on collisions every year, and it would cost only $10 million to install a guardrail.

According to wardsauto.com, 13M cars and trucks were sold in 2011. At a cost of $200 each, that means it would cost $2.6B per year to add these cameras to every vehicle. Even if this would eliminate all 200 of the backup-related deaths each year (which it obviously wouldn't), that would mean spending $13M per life saved. This is far higher than the figure used in most engineering projects; i.e. this is not a good return per dollar on safety, and there are much more cost-effective ways to spend this money.

I don't know where the $200 estimate comes from. Currently, Amazon has a mirror monitor plus rear-view night vision camera for $69 (granted, that's a sale price) and for $53 a camera with a stand-alone monitor. Of course there is the labor to install, but there would be minimal labor cost if this was added at the factory, and economies of scale would bring the price down.

but, how many thousands die at the hands of drunk drivers each year? The breathalyzer mandate would be a tougher sell but save more lives. i guess you can sell cameras as "think of the children". The only thing that scares me on the road is the drunken idiots.

I have a car with a rear backup sensor. I feel like this is better than a camera, because rather than having to interpret what I see visually on a small screen, I get a simplified display of objects anywhere around the rear of the car along with an audio alarm as things get closer to the bumper.

So I don't feel like mandating cameras is a good idea, when there are other possible technologies that could work as well or better.

The referenced articles all seem to refer to the blind spots that can occur when you depend solely on your mirrors for situational awareness. This is appropriate when you're on the highway, driving at a high rate of speed, and with all the other cars around you going in the same direction.

Presumably, you are not moving forward when you initiate backing up. That means there's plenty of time, and yes, an obligation, to turn around, look over your shoulder, and look directly for obstacles, especially other people, before and during the entire time you're moving backwards.

And if the person behind you is shorter than the peak of your trunk? Children can and do put themselves right behind cars, and some of them do get killed because of that.

While there may be a way to avoid this by combining a walk around the car before entering the car, with near-constant use of the mirrors from the moment you get in the car to the moment you finish reversing, the plain fact is that it is not easy to know if someone less than 3 feet tall is right behind you. I suspect most drivers have avoided hitting kids while backing up more out of luck than out of assiduous mirror-usage.

Edmunds said some of the biggest blind spots are on passenger cars where the trunk has a high deck lid and the driver sits low to the ground. For the Cadillac CTS-V coupe, Edmunds measured a blind spot 101 feet long, compared with about 40 feet for minivans from Toyota and Honda.

No it's not if you're disabled. Unless you like walking five blocks to the subway, climbing four flights of stairs, walking another two blocks in transfers, another four staircases and then another five blocks when you get to your location. Or spending three hours on a bus and still having to walk five blocks to and from the bus.

Oh wait, you can't walk more than fifty feet? Well sucks to be you.

There's a reason NYC provides (read: is legally forced to provide) free shared van service for disabled people. It

simple. if you can't see all around you, don't fucking move until you can!

People make mistakes. So if I'm reversing out of a parking spot, and you walk behind my car, with lights clearly indicating that I'm reversing, and I hit you, you may have the law on your side, but I know it hurts you considerably more than it hurts me.

Especially if I move forward / backward over you a few times to make sure you can't sue me.

Well you would only have to pay attention the the rear-view cam when backing up. When driving the screen usually show GPS/Media player controls or whatever.
I have had a car with a rear cam for a long time, and I never had to wipe mud or junk from it. I do wash my car every now and then, but not too often.

Well you would only have to pay attention the the rear-view cam when backing up.

This is the problem. People back over other people because they aren't looking behind them (OK, there are accidents, but 9 times out of 10 it's because some idiot just drives out without checking over their shoulders and mirrors).

What make the lawmakers think that people will use RV camera's instead. It's not very useful as most RV cameras only show what is directly behind you, not what is going to T-bone you as you jet out without looking.

FTA

17,000 people are injured and over 200 die in backover accidents

That's a death rate of 1.1% of accidents. That's a pretty good survival rate for car accident.

Wouldn't this time/money be better spent on better driver education? I mean if someone backs out without checking their mirror/shoulders, they'll back out without using the camera too.

I have to ask, how many accidents are when Bob's wife backs over Bob's little toe at 2 KPH and all Bob has is an owie? Bob has to list that as a car accident if he wants an X-Ray for his toe.

I've seen a video where a toddler stands in FRONT of a parked car and the front of the car is taller than the toddler so the driver couldn't see the toddler and ran over the toddler. The toddler's parents/guardians are mostly to be blamed in that incident. It was a moderately busy street not suitable for unsupervised toddlers.

The rear reversing sensors that come standard on many cars seem pretty good at detecting stuff. So why cameras for all cars? How many more would these cameras save compared to those se

I've seen a video where a toddler stands in FRONT of a parked car and the front of the car is taller than the toddler so the driver couldn't see the toddler and ran over the toddler. The toddler's parents/guardians are mostly to be blamed in that incident. It was a moderately busy street not suitable for unsupervised toddlers.

I have a pretty big SUV. There was an interesting segment I saw once were they had not one, but an entire kindergarten class stand in front of that model. From inside the car, you couldn't see any of them. For that reason, I always walk around my car if there are small children known to be in the vicinity. Sometimes I do it anyway just out of habit. 10 seconds of inconvenience to spare me a lifetime of guilt if I run over someone's kid? Yeah, I'm willing to take the time.

You also run over less bikes that way. If you also kick the tires, look at the lights and (in winter) make sure your plates are clear...lot of hassle avoided simply by a quick loop around the vehicular before entry. Lazy man's circle-check.

I've been driving for over 30 years, and have yet to back up into someone. Why should I have to pay for your inability to drive???

Of course, this is from a country that now has ordered a private business to give a product away for free. That is, ordered insurance companies to cover birth control without any co-pay. Why no co-pay? Because it's so cheap to begin with ($20-$50/month). When do I get my free drugs for conditions that aren't voluntary, like my glaucoma meds that cost me over $100/month with insurance??? But get some special interest group together (like maybe people who make backup cameras and birth control pills???), and suddenly a government mandate shows up.

I'm really getting tired of the federal government deciding what is best for others, and making me pay for it. Sure, it only costs $200. Now, add on anti-lock brakes, 5mph bumpers (which don't work), and a host of other things that the government has mandated 'for your own good', and the cost of just the government mandates for a car probably easily adds another 3 or 4 thousand dollars to the price. Pretty soon those little lights on mirrors that detect someone in your blind spot will be required. Isn't it interesting that people will buy those things that want them anyway, but for some reason the government decides that people that don't want to pay for them have to have them anyway.. and somehow I end up paying more???

Enough already. I'll put up with the pollution stuff, since there is an effect on everyone. But seat belts, safety mirrors, and the rest?? If you want it.. pay for it. If a car dealer wants to offer it as standard equipment, go for it.

But the government requiring backup cameras is just going too far. If you are so stupid that you can't look behind you and make sure where your kids are, buy one. If a parent is so stupid they let their kids run around parking lots or down streets without watching them, maybe evolution does work.

My "inability" to drive? Based on the fact that I support vehicles with high tech driver aids? lol!

Now, let's get to the real question: Why should I have to wait for you to back over someone's kid before it occurs to you that it would actually be better if you could see what is behind you? Further, why would you resist an inexpensive technical innovation that empowers you?

If you are so stupid that you can't look behind you and make sure where your kid

Of course, this is from a country that now has ordered a private business to give a product away for free. That is, ordered insurance companies to cover birth control without any co-pay. Why no co-pay? Because it's so cheap to begin with ($20-$50/month).

Holy non-sequitur Batman. Actually, insurance companies generally like giving out contraception because it saves them money overall. Giving someone contraception is cheaper than covering them through pregnancy and raising children. All this "mandate" doe

Ok, so a child runs out behind your car and you knock them over, killing or severely injuring them. Do you hop out, shout at the parents about "Darwin Awards" and carry on with your day? If you do, you're a sociopath and probably shouldn't be put in a position of authority over anyone. I know one person who tried to kill themself four times because they hit a child, despite it not being their fault. I can't fault your logical argument, but the world isn't always logical.

I've seen a video where a toddler stands in FRONT of a parked car and the front of the car is taller than the toddler so the driver couldn't see the toddler and ran over the toddler. The toddler's parents/guardians are mostly to be blamed in that incident. It was a moderately busy street not suitable for unsupervised toddlers.

I have a pretty big SUV. There was an interesting segment I saw once were they had not one, but an entire kindergarten class stand in front of that model. From inside the car, you couldn't see any of them. For that reason, I always walk around my car if there are small children known to be in the vicinity. Sometimes I do it anyway just out of habit. 10 seconds of inconvenience to spare me a lifetime of guilt if I run over someone's kid? Yeah, I'm willing to take the time.

I'm also amazed parallel parking, a car behind me can practically disappear in the blind spot, making it very difficult to judge distances. I retrofitted a reverse camera. $75 or so from Amazon.

What I find criminal is that school busses aren't equipped with reverse cameras. Due to dead-end streets many routes require a backup-turnaround, and busses have a much larger rear blindspot than a car. The safest approach in this scenario is to backup AFTER picking up students, and BEFORE dropping off students. However you never know when a late child might be running for the bus. In many districts if a bus has to backup on school property there must be a spotter. There's cameras recording the students actions inside, but a simple $100 system can look behind the bus.

On the other hand, kids of that age should not be out on the street on their own. They should be supervised by their parents or another responsible adult. While i certainly wouldn't want to run over a small child, and like you take precautions not to, it would still ultimately be negligence on the part of the parents if it happened.

I read about this on another newspaper site, and they cited the reason as specifically being child deaths - as children, particularly if they're not standing, are often too short to see in the rear-view mirror or over your shoulder.

When I was growing up, we had this happen to a family on the next street over. A two year old escaped the house unnoticed and thought it would be funny to hide behind daddy's car before daddy went to work. Daddy didn't see his son "hiding" behind the rear passenger side tire, because Daddy was not in the habit of making a complete circle around the vehicle in the driveway to check for debris and/or children prior to rolling out. Daddy was charged with accidental vehicular manslaughter. And his son was de

When I was growing up, we had this happen to a family on the next street over. A two year old escaped the house unnoticed and thought it would be funny to hide behind daddy's car before daddy went to work. Daddy didn't see his son "hiding" behind the rear passenger side tire, because Daddy was not in the habit of making a complete circle around the vehicle in the driveway to check for debris and/or children prior to rolling out. Daddy was charged with accidental vehicular manslaughter. And his son was dead too. This technology didn't exist at the time, but that's one tragedy that could have been prevented right then and there.

I've never seen a backup camera that shows what's hidden behind a rear tire, so this is one tragic accident that wouldn't have been prevented by a backup camera.

Or such an accident might have even be caused by a backup camera, since people will rely too much on the technology and forego the physical checks around the vehicle that they might otherwise have done.

But if they really want to reduce child deaths they should maybe look at other causes [cdc.gov] first, since this cause seems to be relatively insignificant compared to other causes. Of course it's easier to raise a "hidden" tax than to use actual tax money to invest in health care instead of say military.

One of our installers ran over and killed his 3 year old just two weeks ago. It would have been nice to have a camera, as th e child darted out of the house as the father was backing out. I know another fellow who killed his daughter that way thirty years ago.

I have a back up camera installed on my RV, along with a fresnel lens, and west coast mirrors. The back up camera is so inexpensive that it seems a crime to not require them. And I'm not even a safety first person

But here we are in 21st century America, where a no brainer like a requirement for backup cameras becomes a political issue like taxes. You've said your part, maybe next up will likely be someone saying that if people can't control their children, then don't make ME pay for it! I think that if we tried to mandate headlights today, someone would be complaining about "Those Damn socialists telling us how we're supposed to outfit our cars!"

TFA says that 200 people are killed by backover accidents, so that's saving a hundred lives a year.

TFA also gives a range for the cost of these things. Let's take $200, since we all know government tends to underestimate cost.

Per Wikipedia, 5.5 million cars are sold this year. Multiplying, that means that mandating these cameras on all of them will cost about a billion dollars.

I guarantee you that you can save a lot more than a hundred lives if you spend a billion dollars on any number of other things (diabetes education, suicide prevention and mental illness care, cancer screenings for the poor, medical research in general, take your pick).

It isn't the number of people that die that determines whether it is worthwhile, it is the cost/benefit ratio. Fortunately, TFA provides some of the needed information, but it doesn't seem very consistent."But regulators say that 95 to 112 deaths and as many as 8,374 injuries could be avoided each year by eliminating the wide blind spot behind a vehicle." (Compared to the 200/17000 numbers, it looks like they believe the cameras will about halve the number of accidents.)"...regulators predicted that adding the cameras and viewing screens will cost the auto industry as much as $2.7 billion a year, or $160 to $200 a vehicle." Wikipedia says 5.5 million vehicles sold in USA in 2009. (I presume this is new sales only.) This would imply about $500 per vehicle to reach $2.7 billion."For the 2012 model year, 45 percent of vehicles offer a rearview camera as standard equipment." Is that 45% of vehicles sold, or 45% of models? If 45% of vehicles, then only 55% are going to have extra cost if the cameras are required.

Optimistic cost/benefit ratio: 112 deaths prevented per year, 55% of 5.5 million vehicles at $160 per vehicle = 484 million dollars per year = $4.3 million dollars to save one life and 75 injuries. (75=8374/112)Pessimistic cost/benefit ratio: 95 deaths prevented per year at a cost of $2.7 billion per year = $28 million to save one life and a bunch of injuries.

(Note that the cost is up-front, but the benefit is spread out over the ~10 year lifetime of the vehicle, which makes the investment a little less attractive, but I'm not trying to account for this.)

Here in the UK, drivers are taught to reverse from the road into a driveway (or from a major road into a minor one when manoeuvring) and then drive out forwards. This means you're going the more dangerous way around (backwards) into the quieter area rather than the busier one, you have a better view of the busier area to choose when to complete your move, and usually you can concentrate on looking one way into a driveway/road you're reversing into instead of both.

A fair proportion of drivers actually do this, but you see a disturbing number of people who will just drive straight forward into a space in a car park by the shops, only to reverse back out later into a "road" where there are often other vehicles manoeuvring, pedestrians walking past close to vehicles where they can be hard to see, people wheeling stuff around on their way to their car, kids running off, and so on. Then they act all surprised when they back out and miss something. So, score one for better driver education.

Having said that, I would love to have better parking assistance with my car. It's a great vehicle, but the one big downer about modern safety design with curves everywhere is that it's much harder to judge how close you really to nearby hazards when manoeuvring in tight spaces. Similarly, all those crumple zones and such are great, but they do mean that rear windows tend to start higher up these days and obviously I can't see through solid bodywork to know how close I've got to that wall/post/child behind my car. In any case, whichever way you look, there's always a region near the ground you can't see from the driver's seat. So, score one for technology that allows careful drivers a better view around their vehicle as well. It's not like this vs. driver training is an either-or thing, when things like choosing to reverse in the safer direction only take ten seconds to teach and half a minute more to justify why.

Here in the UK, drivers are taught to reverse from the road into a driveway (or from a major road into a minor one when manoeuvring) and then drive out forwards. This means you're going the more dangerous way around (backwards) into the quieter area rather than the busier one, you have a better view of the busier area to choose when to complete your move, and usually you can concentrate on looking one way into a driveway/road you're reversing into instead of both.

A fair proportion of drivers actually do this, but you see a disturbing number of people who will just drive straight forward into a space in a car park by the shops, only to reverse back out later into a "road" where there are often other vehicles manoeuvring, pedestrians walking past close to vehicles where they can be hard to see, people wheeling stuff around on their way to their car, kids running off, and so on. Then they act all surprised when they back out and miss something. So, score one for better driver education.

This, here in Australia drivers have a mortal fear of reverse parking despite the fact that it's safer. It's just that drivers are bloody lazy. I always reverse part, it's faster overall and safer. Plus what inevitably happens is my low profile Honda Civic gets boxed in by two massive Mum-Tank SUV's which I cans see past due to the high windows and illegal tint.

Add to this that it's near impossible to lose your license in Australia if you're over 22, six speeding fines, no problems. Never indicate, never

What make the lawmakers think that people will use RV camera's instead. It's not very useful as most RV cameras only show what is directly behind you, not what is going to T-bone you as you jet out without looking.

Most RV cameras are wide angle lenses, and being mounted at the very rear of the car, they are in a position where they have a much better view of what is about to T-bone you than the driver seat with its view obscured by the truck, wall, etc you are parked next to.

Last week, I borrowed a Honda Odyssey with a backup camera. The back of the vehicle was so coated with winter road garbage that you almost couldn't tell that the vehicle was sky blue. Nevertheless, the picture from the camera was quite good.

How does that work with winter, mud and all the other junk that will cover the camera? Do I get a ticket if it's obscured?

I've driven a Prius with a backup camera for three years now. The view is generally good in all conditions. The only real problem is when it rains heavily, you can get a single raindrop hanging from the lens (the lens is tiny) and blocking much of the view.

We know many drivers are idiots (I wonder sometimes if there's an idiot out there with my name on him). So providing technology which could marginally reduce their lethality in spite of themselves, would help the others who share the environment with them and their multi-ton rolling missiles.

Even the best drivers are subject to momentary foibles as well. Which, in a perfect storm, could result in a tragedy. Any technology which could mitigate the effect of these foibles would serve to reduce human pain and

Yes, it will be mandated that it works all the time and yes it will be checked as part of the annual inspection. And like all the other safety features it will be one more thing that will make a car that is in a minor accident too expensive to repair so that over time it will become more and more difficult for the poor to find affordable transportation except for that provided by the government to travel to government approved locations.

Math, it really should be mandatory to vote. Google sez we sell about 16 million cars annually. At the minimum price mentioned of $58 per car that works out to $929 million. Now ASSume it cuts that 200 deaths to zero (it won't) and that works out to what per life? Uh huh. For 4.6M per there are a lot more cost effective ways to save lives. Oh, but there are also people injured. Ok, go that math. For over 50K per injury that is still pretty fracking expensive. And I'd bet good money that a fair chunk of that 17,000 didn't get hurt very badly, perhaps a broken bone. Again assuming a rear camera would cut that number to zero, which it won't.

Yes, them damn socialists are trying to tell us how to live. Her Do you know how much money has been laid out and wasted on this safety crap? Here e are a few more outrages that the leftist leaning panty waists are tryin' to ram down our throats:

1. Tail light brightness standards - Oh come on. Who has ever been injured by a tail light that was too dim.

2. Hood latches. Hood latches? Do you have any idea how much money is wasted on putting those secondary hood latches on every car? If one hood latch isn't enough, then lock the designer up and throw away the key!

3. Seat belts. I personally know 25 million people who were in a wreck, the car fell down a cliff, and they only survived because they were thrown from the vehicle. Seat belts are mandatory, and they don't do a darn thing except trap people.
5.And here is the biggest one of all. Baby seats. That's right folks. They didn't have baby seats when I was a young'un, and here I am. Total waste of money, coming out of MY pocket

Let's put some numbers to it as well. Annual car sales are about 6 million/year in the US. At a cost of $200/vehicle, that's a total incremental cost of $1.2B. That puts the "cost to save a life" at $1.2B/200 = $6 million per life saved, assuming that the backup cameras prevent every single death. I would posit that it's more likely to be half that effective at best, so $12M/live saved.

IMHO, such numbers put this proposal squarely in the same category as proposals to increase the required age/height/weight for children not to sit in booster seats--they result in a huge financial outlay by the public to offset a (statistically-speaking) relatively minor problem. The US sees about 2.4 million deaths per year. Two hundred is 8.3 thousandths of one percent of the death toll.

Put some more numbers to it:
in the 80s it was calculated that those high rear taillights (in the middle of a car) would prevent 50% of accidents. Later they recalculated it's a lot closer to 5%.
Rearview cameras will get dirty & will prevent some people from using their own eyes in some cases. Who benefits?
Probably somebody has a ton of shitty old TFT resistive panels left to unload, or some other ulterior motive that will come out years from now.

Put some more numbers to it:in the 80s it was calculated that those high rear taillights (in the middle of a car) would prevent 50% of accidents. Later they recalculated it's a lot closer to 5%.

Rearview cameras will get dirty & will prevent some people from using their own eyes in some cases. Who benefits?

Probably somebody has a ton of shitty old TFT resistive panels left to unload, or some other ulterior motive that will come out years from now.

Another example of legislation without a factual basis was the "headlights on all the time" mandated in the 1990s. Someone did a study and found that drivers who turned their headlights on in the daytime were far less likely to get into accidents. They confused correlation with causation and arrived at the wrong conclusion, that it was the headlights preventing accidents. In reality, headlights didn't change the accident statistics at all, but cost us millions of barrels of oil powering them all. What they really learned was that a person who voluntarily takes actions for their own safety are far less likely to get in accidents. "Headlights on for safety" was only a side effect of a careful driver.

It's also why Volvos are such "safe" cars. Someone has to be pretty desperately concerned for their safety before buying something that ugly.:-)

However, in this case, I have to agree with the backup cameras directly adding to safety. Every new car I've sat in for the last few years has had high side and rear windows, and poor lines of sight to close-up obstacles. Our new car has a backup camera, and there is simply no comparison in terms of visibility. The lens doesn't show too much peripheral vision, however, so it also has ultrasonic detectors that pick up motion and warn of external objects approaching from the rear sides. These also add to safely backing out of perpendicular parking spots, which are especially problematic when stuck beside a giant blind spot created by an SUV, truck, or van. I can't tell how many actual accidents they've prevented in the past year, because they probably would have been avoided by traditional means (sight, brakes, honking, flipping of fingers, etc.) but I know I've had no accidents when using them.

I've also been involved in a dual rear-end collision in a parking lot. My little pickup met a Mercedes Benz at about 4-5 MPH. I had checked over my shoulder before moving, and was backing out using the mirror, and the car in the slot opposite mine was simultaneously backing out and was hidden from my line of sight below the level of the tailgate. We both were backing our tails out to the west, so each of us entered the other's mirror blind spot almost immediately. Turns out the final score was steel bumper: 0, engineered crumple zones: -$$$$. While no lives were threatened, a backup camera would have saved both of us from having to deal with a collision that cost far more than any camera system on the market.

If they could design the camera to replace the rear view mirrors on both sides of the car they would save more than $200 in gas over the life of the car so even at that price they would pay for themselves. If they could eliminate the blind spot for changing lanes I would think they would save more than 200 people a year.
Lets look at motherboards for computer. There have been a number of devices that one had to purchase that are now standard on a motherboard Sound cards and network adapters are just two

They used to do this and people were getting killed left and right on the highways in accidents which today are easily survivable. For example, in the 1960s seat-belts were optional and not very common. My father had to specially order them for his cars because they were not standard. Collapsible steering columns, crumple zones, safety glass, etc. were all mandated because it cuts down on deaths and serious injury. I suspect having this feature will lower insurance costs, perhaps enough to cover the additional cost. Many of the safety features save money by lowering the cost of people in emergency rooms.

There are no laws that prevent you from doing this. You just have to keep those cars on your own private property instead of on the socialist roads that are provided to you for "the good of the whole".

We could easily solve this by privatizing all roads and making them toll roads and letting businesses decide if they require these safety features to allow you on their roadways.

To follow up, this is mostly useful for seeing young children who would otherwise be below what I can see out the rear window. I also have found it useful when backing out since my dog will often move in back of the car (wanting to hop in the back for a ride). I also think this is useful for older drivers who find it difficult to turn their heads around to see behind them.

I imagine that most of these accidents are with young children behind cars since they can be difficult to find and don't necessarily know